Template talk:Infobox animanga/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Category:Anime and manga infobox templates?

After rooting around the animanga WP category structure some, I came across the template cats, particularly Category:Anime and manga infobox templates. Peeking at it, I noted that {{Infobox animanga}} is, rightly, categorized in it, but also {{Infobox animanga/Other}}. My main question is whether all the components of {{Infobox animanga}} should be sorted into this category, and, if so, whether they should use a custom sortkey for it. Any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that yes, they should all be categorized there. They should be sorted by what comes after the Infobox part of the name. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll get cracking on that. Should only take ~5 to 10 minutes... —Dinoguy1000 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Note that I used HotCat (for the first time), and I slipped up with {{Infobox animanga/Header}}. HotCat evidently adds new categories outside of any <noinclude/> tags on pages that don't have any other categories. Therefore, every article that /Header got transcluded onto was briefly categorized into Category:Anime and manga infobox templates. The articles were almost all back out of the category by the time of writing this (down to 25 pages total), but a couple of entries may linger for a few days, depending on how the caching acts. —Dinoguy1000 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

They've already all cleared out :) Good job and thanks!AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Parameter names

Since I've AWB to fix the new image settings discussed above. I figured that I will also fix some of the parameter usage as well. However, before I start doing that, I want to know if we would like to change the names of any of the parameters. I would think that renaming episode_list, volume_list, and chapter_list to just list would be one such alteration. I actually despise unnecessarily complex parameter names and the various list parameters are one such example of an unnecessarily complex parameter name. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'd prefer to just leave them as is. While list is simple, having the specific looks cleaner and makes it distinguish templates from one another. Its also in keeping with whats done in the TV template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Another possible rename serialized -> magazine. The parameter name will be less ambitious about what it is suppose to be. --Farix (Talk) 13:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I wouldn't mind an alias for that being added, mostly because serialized is harder to spell :P Still, I think serialized is more appropriate for the content, as its what the work was serialized in. I'm also hesitant to change too many parameter names when we're already doing some major changes here, and there are still quite a few articles that already are using an older series of names that have since changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the parameter names won't be that big of a deal since the infoboxes will be updated anyways and I'll be doing some other reformatting as well. AWB has this nice little parameter renaming feature that makes things really easy. This will allow us to reduce the number of aliases to those that make sense to keep around and simplify the templates a bit. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy just to see the godawful title_name and list_episodes parameter names gotten rid of. And speaking of name, all the instances where that parameter's value is equal to the pagename should be stripped too, since the template automatically inserts the pagename if a value is omitted. Other than that, how much work would it be to add formatting spaces as you go through? For example, turning

{{Infobox animanga/Header
 |name=
 |image=
 |size=
 |caption=
 |ja_name=
 |ja_name_trans=
 |genre=
}}

into

{{Infobox animanga/Header
 |name          = 
 |image         = 
 |size          = 
 |caption       = 
 |ja_name       = 
 |ja_name_trans = 
 |genre         = 
}}

This helps make the source more readable (IMHO). At this time, I'd also like to bring up the issue of the anime box not having a network_en parameter again. I understand that not everyone likes the abc_en parameters, but the issue was discussed for a couple of weeks, and that was the consensus; therefore, I think the anime infobox should be made to match the rest. One last point, I think volume_list, abc_english, and abc_English can all be eliminated: I only added them because I wasn't 100% sure what people would want to use. —Dinoguy1000 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely oppose the the "_en" as that is a form of systemic bias by giving special treatment to English language releases over other non-Japanese language releases. I would actually like to see the current _en parameters merged back into the _other parameters. --Farix (Talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to note that we don't even *mention* any language adaptations except for the original Japanese and the English in prose. And once again, I fail to see how giving the English version its own section on the English Wikipedia constitutes a form of systematic bias. Aside from that, though, if _en does end up being done away with as far as having its own field, I feel the parameter itself should remain, automatically inserting the English release information at whatever location would be agreed upon. Otherwise, we'll just end up back where we were before the _en parameters got added. —Dinoguy1000 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why in needs to be separated from the release information of other languages in the first place. Separating it form other non-Japanese languages releases does give the English language releases special treatment. And WP:BIAS does instruct us to avoid if not counter systemic bias. --Farix (Talk) 17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote one of the first statements on WP:BIAS: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." (bold emphasis added) This issue of a seperate field for English information is an issue of presentation, not omission, therefore I don't see how WP:BIAS could apply to this situation. —Dinoguy1000 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree we need a network_en as well. Sorry, but this is the English encyclopedia. It isn't giving it "special treatment" its following Wikipedia guidelines that we not give undue attention to non-Japanese language releases. The original and any English releases are what we focus on. If we're going to argue that _en parameters are a systematic bias, then we also would have to call our entire MoS the same and call all of our articles biased because we include info on the original Japanese release and any English releases. Other languages are regulated to a list in the infobox, and maybe 1-2 sentence mentions in the relevant media section if it needs to be fluffed out. This is appropriate, to me, and it seems only right that the infobox actually reflects that same emphasis of original + English language releases. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia guidelines does separating the English language release information from other non-Japanese release information follow? Your argument is also self-contradictory, "It is not systemic bias because this is the English Wikipedia, therefor we must favor the English language release information over other release information." By separating the English language release information in the infobox, you are favoring the English language release information over the other non-Japanese languages, creating a systemic bias. The English language release information should not be given any special treatment in the infobox. --Farix (Talk) 17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet, even without these parameters, it is given special treatment. Before they were introduced, there was uncertainty concerning whether English language release information should be listed with Japanese information, or with other language information. Some editors wanted to do it one way, and some the other (I didn't particularly care, as long as something was agreed upon). It was a very ambiguous problem with no clear-cut resolution, so the solution that *was* reached was a compromise of providing the English information its own field. It's important to note that not everyone who participated in the discussion was completely comfortable with this solution, but it was agreed to be the best possible solution at the time. Personally, though, I see little reason to continue this debate here. It would be best for you to start a topic on the project talk page, where a lot more people can weigh in on it. And I'd also like to note that I don't have much of a personal opinion on this matter, so long as whatever solution is ultimately agreed upon has a decent longevity (i.e. it's not likely to be challenged or changed in the near future) and is applied uniformly across all the infobox components. —Dinoguy1000 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

episode_list and chapter_list defaults

I've been thinking for some time now about the possibility of having default values for the episode_list and chapter_list parameters, and I think I've figured out the best way it might be done while not requiring any updates to existing pages. However, before I begin, I'd like to make it clear that, at this time, this *isn't* an announcement that I'm going to implement this, it's more of me feeling out the reaction to it.

Anyways, my idea revolves around setting abc_list to yes to enable the default value. When this is done, the list of chapters/episodes would be automatically linked to the list of chapters or episodes. This is made possible because the MoS specifies the correct naming format of these pages (List of abc episodes or List of abc chapters). Therefore, using abc_list = yes would result in the template linking to List of title|PAGENAME episodes/chapters. It would also mean that existing usage would be completely unaffected. Any thoughts? (and before you ask, yes, the only reason I've been thinking about this is because sometimes I feel too lazy to type out episode/chapter_list = List of NAME episodes/chapters) —Dinoguy1000 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep the parameter arguments as is. Even if the MOS specifies a naming convention for list articles, there may be some inconsistencies, especially with chapter lists (which I think are misnamed) and volume lists. There are also a few cases where the episode list is in a media list, which we will have to account for.

I also think that the lists should be a separate line in the infobox, similar to how Episode list is implemented in {{Infobox Television episode}}. --Farix (Talk) 02:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel you misunderstood me. This would not affect existing funtionality in any way, it would only add to it. And the new functionality wouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate special cases, either: it would only work if the list page name conformed to the MoS, and the series title in the list page name was identical to either the title or name parameter specified in the infobox component, or the name of the page the infobox was on. If these conditions weren't met, using abc_list = yes would only result in a redlink, which you should be checking for anyways when using the list parameters. However, from what I've seen, most list pages actually *do* meet these requirements, so this could be a viable addition, requiring the insertion of only a single #ifeq statement.

Reading back through my original message, I see it was actually a bit ambiguous. Sorry about that, I wasn't all here when I wrote it out. =P —Dinoguy1000 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost a week since the last comment, and I feel that my reply addressed all of Farix's concerns, so I'd like to hear further thoughts on this. Anyone? —Dinoguy1000 17:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to leave it as is. It's not going to hurt to put in the page name, but it will make the functionality of the parameter a little more complicated in what is already a complicated set of templates. --Farix (Talk) 17:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response - I haven't been on Wikipedia much the last few days. I think it's a great idea, let's do it. Changing the template shouldn't affect it's functionality in any way so it can't hurt, and those who want to use it won't have to wait any longer. Oh, and I didn't find the way you stated it ambiguous. --Eruhildo (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Parameter cleanup

Ok, here is the list of parameters that will be cleaned up.

• Infobox animanga/Header
  • name <- title, title_name
  • image <- reformatted to use [[Image:Example.png|230px]]
• Infobox animanga/Anime
  • first <- first_aired
  • last <- last_aired
  • episodes <- num_episodes
  • episode_list <- list_episodes
• Infobox animanga/Manga
  • illustrator <- artist
  • publisher_en <- publisher_english, publisher_English
  • magazine <- serialized
  • first <- first_aired
  • last <- last_aired
  • volumes <- num_volumes
• Infobox animanga/OVA
  • licensor_en <- licensor_english
  • episodes <- num_episodes
  • episode_list <- list_episodes
  • released <- release_dates
• Infobox animanga/Movie
  • released <- release_date
• Infobox animanga/Drama
  • first <- first_aired
  • last <- last_aired
  • episodes <- num_episodes
  • episode_list <- list_episodes
• Infobox animanga/Game
  • released <- release_date
• Infobox animanga/Novel
  • illustrator <- artist
  • publisher_en <- publisher_english
  • magazine <- serialized
  • first <- first_aired
  • last <- last_aired
  • volumes <- num_volumes

--Farix (Talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to be doing any changes to parameter values? If so, could you do a check to see if a value provided for the name parameter is the same as the page name, and if so, remove it? And, for that matter, if individual subcomponents don't need the name parameter, it may as well be removed altogether. —Dinoguy1000 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Only for image. But there is also no why to I know of for AWB to detect if the value of name is the same as the page name. And it is such a minor thing that I don't consider it worth the trouble. --Farix (Talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Speaking of images, the #ifexist will be removed when all infoboxes have been properly updated, right? And should we, perhaps, automatically categorize pages that use the old image parameter style for cleanup? The category used could be hidden easily enough (just use __HIDDENCAT__), and it would help get the cleanup done that much faster. —Dinoguy1000 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, yes. But it may be some time before that is done. I'm trying to knock off 500 articles a day. But on days I when I'm called out for work, like today, the number I can knock off will be far fewer. --Farix (Talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally finished. Right now, I've created a temporary category at Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters to detect any articles that is using an obsolete parameter. Since there are over 2,700 articles using the infobox, it may take a day or too for the cache files to update. --Farix (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we got all of the obsolete parameters. The only time something shows up in the cat is when I adjust the obsolete parameter checks in the templates. So I'll start pulling out those parameters completely from the infoboxes but leave some of the checks in. --Farix (Talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that this is mostly done, would you object to adding a check for whether the name/title parameter equals the pagename, adding pages to Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters if it comes out as true? Pages categorized by this wouldn't be incredibly important to correct, but it'd still be nice to focus efforts towards that end, rather than fixing as they get stumbled upon and noticed. —Dinoguy1000 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably just for the title parameter in the components. But name should always be set. The default behavior is simply a form of idiot-proofing the template. --Farix (Talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, how do we fix for the current check in the manga component? It seems to check if first is defined, last is not defined, and volumes equals 1 (in other words, it's checking for a single release), but I don't see how it's supposed to be corrected... —Dinoguy1000 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a check to look for one-shot or single releases, which should use the published field instead of first. However, some manga we only have the release dates of that single volume but not the dates the manga was serialize in the magazine, so I'm not exactly sure which would be best in those cases. --Farix (Talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, check for when the title parameter is the same as the page name has been included. I hope there are not as many articles as there were where ja_name_trans was the same as either name or the page name. --Farix (Talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename "ja_name_trans"

I've noticed (mostly while working on the manhwa and manhua infoboxes) that many people - especially new users - often mistake the purpose of the ja_name_trans field (or, alternately, ko_name_trans and zh_name_trans) as being for an English translation of the Japanese (Korean, Chinese) title. Therefore, I think we need to rename the parameter to help eliminate confusion, and we could possibly add a parameter specifically for whenever the literal English translation differs from the English title (more so than the inclusion/omission of articles such as "a" or "the", exact word order, etc.). For renaming, I was thinking of something along the lines of ja_name_romaji or ja_name_roman or something... Any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would actually support renaming both ja_name and ja_name_trans to enhance clarity of what those fields are for. To what, I'm not entirely sure. kanji_name/katakana_name (with one being an alias of the other) and romanji_name? --Farix (Talk) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to clutter the field, and if you did kanji/katakana, you'd have to add in hiragana as well; so just keep it as kanji, like in {{Japanese episode list}}. We could do something like on that template too, with kanji_name and romaji_name.--十八 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "cluttering the field". But what I was saying that katakana_name would be an alias for kanji_name. --Farix (Talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant that kanji, hiragana, and katakana cannot accurately be alias' of each other since they are all very different in structure and usage, so just using kanji would be suitable, especially when hiragana and katakana are basically simplified forms of kanji.--十八 00:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree they need renaming to deal with the confusion. Any technical reason it can't just be changed to ja_name_transliteration or ja_transliterated. Juhachi's suggestion of mimicking the ja episode list is also a good option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep parameter names short with a reasonable chance of spelling it correctly. Long parameter names tend to be ugly IMO. --Farix (Talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, I'd prefer to keep the parameter names shorter than publisher_other (which is currently the longest parameter name used by any of the infobox components). But then, that's just me. ;P —Dinoguy1000 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I support something like ja_romaji and ja_kanji. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why I didn't think of these names... I would support either kanji_name/roma[n]ji_name or ja_kanji/ja_roma[n]ji, with a bias towards the latter (I like it when stuff lines up =D ). —Dinoguy1000 17:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ja_kanji and ja_romaji it is. --Farix (Talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, this will (hopefully) help with some confusion from now on! —Dinoguy1000 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

...I'm wondering why I didn't propose this months ago. Oh well, it's all awesomeness now. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Magazine field in the manga infobox

Did we ever come to a consensus as to whether magazine was for the original serialization only, for original and English, or for all magazines a work was serialized in? Right now, we've got it going all three ways as the instructions don't really clearly say one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given how an outside editor reacted to our previous stance on excluding non-Japanese and non-English information in articles, it may be good to include a line for original serialization, and one for other serialization. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Live action TV movie

I can't seem to figure this out. Can someone add in the switch for if it's a live action TV movie to either the TV Drama or TV Movie template piece? Currently the TV Drama piece doesn't allow for if it's a one-shot live action TV movie or special, and the TV Movie piece is for anime only. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ANN Link

Should we add ANN links to the infobox? If not, why not? - plau (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. That would be far too many links on many series with multiple items, and in some cases, there are multiple links to deal with. The current system of having them solely in Els is fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: Something seriously wrong with the infobox

Take a look at Gear Fighter Dendoh, and if you try editing Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny's infobox, the same thing will happen. I tihnk there's something wrong with the coding. - plau (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it was has already been fixed. It doesn't seem to have been anything in our infoboxes, though as none of them have changed in the last month or two. Maybe something in one of the other used templates.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be some non-whitespaces that you added switched out for normal whitespace after the parameters that created the problems. Once the original whitespace was restored, the problem was fixed. --Farix (Talk) 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Radio drama/ Internet radio drama?

Can we please make a box specifically for radio dramatisations of anime/manga material? It's not unknown (eg. Maria-sama ga Miteru, Town of Evening Calm) - something like a pared down version of {{Infobox Radio show}} ought to do it, with a parameter for Internet = yes (like in the light novel part). -Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. If there's an equivalent on the JAWP, I think we should make it the same or similar as that one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, there is a "Radio" section on the ja:Template:Infobox animanga, too... -Malkinann (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens - there's both a "Radio" section, and a "Radio Drama" section. I wonder what these are used for? I can't read the parameters that the Japanese wiki uses. :( -Malkinann (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's likely they are both the same box, just with a switch that lets you choose "drama" if needed. It may also be good to have a switch for "internet" as there are internet audio anime shows and internet audio anime drama shows, too. A non-drama show could be a discussion show about the series. The dramas are like the old radio dramas where its a dramatic audio presentation (ever listen to The Shadow?). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the other parameters, though? Station, airtime, dates, number of broadcasts, host (possibly?) I do know what a radio drama is - The Goons are good enough for me. ;) I've never done this templating stuff before... -Malkinann (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The parameters are as follows:

{{Infobox animanga/RadioDrama
|メディア=Media
|タイトル=Title
|原作=Creator
|制作=not sure as I can't find anything using it to get context
|脚本=Script
|演出=Publisher
|放送局=Station
|番組=Program
|書籍=Publication (need context for this one)
|発売元=This and the one below both mean "selling agency". Need context to be clear on them...
|販売元=
|レーベル=Label
|発売日=Date it went on sale
|開始=First date of broadcast
|終了=Last date of broadcast
|販売価格=Price
|売上本数=Number sold
|レイティング=Rating
|収録時間=Running time (total)
|話数=Number of episodes
|枚数=Number of volumes (I think)
|その他=Other
}}

{{Infobox animanga/Radio
|タイトル=Title
|愛称=Nickname
|放送開始=（入力必須）First broadcast date (required)
|放送終了=Final broadcast date
|放送局=（入力必須）Station (required)
|放送時間=Broadcast length
|放送回数=Number of episodes
|放送形式=Broadcast format
|スタジオ=Studio
|ネット局= （放送局） <br /> （放送時間）Network (station) <br/> (Broadcast length)
|ネットワーク=Network
|パーソナリティ=Personality
|DJ=DJ
|アシスタント=Assistant (like a broadcasting sidekick)
|構成作家=Scenario writer
|ディレクター=Director
|プロデューサー=Producer
|ミキサー=Mixer
|脚本=Script
|演出=Producer
|その他のスタッフ=Other staff
|提供=Sponsor(s)
|インターネット=（インターネットラジオの場合のみ）Internet (this is a "yes" if it's an internet radio show)
|その他= Other
|コピーライト=Copyright info
}}

Hope that helps. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox animanga/Header2}}
|-
! colspan="2" style="background: #ccf; text-align: center;" | {{
  #if: {{{internet<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | Internet [[radio drama]] | [[Radio drama]]
}}{{
  #if: {{{title<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | : <span style="font-weight: normal;">''{{{title}}}''</span>
}}</th></tr>{{
  #if: {{{director<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><th style="background: #eef;">Director</th><td>{{{director}}}</td></tr>
}}{{
  #if: {{{writer<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><th style="background: #eef;">Writer</th><td>{{{writer}}}</td></tr>
}}{{
  #if: {{{studio<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><th style="background: #eef;">Studio</th><td>{{{studio}}}</td></tr>
}}{{
  #if: {{{station<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><th style="background: #eef;">Station</th><td>{{{station}}}</td></tr>
}}{{
  #if: {{{first<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><th style="background: #eef;">Original run</th><td>{{
    #ifeq: {{{TV_movie}}} | yes
    | {{nowrap|{{{first}}}}}
    | {{nowrap|{{{first}}}}} – {{
      #if: {{{last<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | {{nowrap|{{{last}}}}} | ongoing
    }}
  }}</td></tr>
}}{{
  #if: {{{episodes<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><th style="background: #eef;">Episodes</th><td>{{{episodes}}}</td></tr>
}}{{
  #if: {{{episode_list<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} | <tr><td colspan="2" style="background: #eef; text-align: center;">{{{episode_list}}}</td></tr>
}}
{{Infobox animanga/Footer}}

Doing some rapid prototyping here. These are what I see as the essential fields. --Farix (Talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's rapid prototyping, but why is episode_list in its own separate field? It should be combined with the episode count, to maintain consistency with the other components. Also, I went ahead and added an internet switch, feel free to tweak as necessary. —Dinoguy1000 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I think it makes it more obvious to the reader that there is a link to an episode list. Generally, I hesitate to add more lines to one of the infobox components, such as all of the _en, which I think is entirely unnecessary. But in the case of a separate line listing the episode or chapter list article, I believe the benefits outweigh the issue over length. --Farix (Talk) 12:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the issue of the episode link appearing on its own line (although IIRC this issue was previously raised somewhere and the current style was kept, but I may start another discussion on the issue...), but I will immediately say that the _en parameters are all necessary, to maintain consistent handling of English publishers, licensors, etc. in the infobox components. I have previously said, though, that I am not opinionated on how this parameter gets rendered, and if you want to start a discussion to try to get the English info merged in with either the Japanese or Other language info, be my guest. All that being said, are there any opinions on the prototype Farix has presented? It looks pretty good to me (but then, I don't know much about [Internet] radio dramas, so I don't know if more fields may be needed or what). —Dinoguy1000 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a though, why not call it an audio drama, which covers both radio broadcasts and internet streaming? It also avoids the special condition. --Farix (Talk) 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a bit overbroad; drama CDs are also considered audio dramas. Or should the infobox component handle those too? —tan³ tx 08:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That may not actually be a bad idea, since currently there is no component for drama CDs. —Dinoguy1000 16:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox component has not been created. {{Infobox animanga/Audio}} --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, already on my watchlist (BTW, I struck the word "not" in your comment, since I don't think that's what you meant to say). —Dinoguy1000 17:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Original English-language manga?

Does anyone know if there are any OEM articles still using our infobox? It would be very nice to be rid of the OEM parameter in {{Infobox animanga/Manga}}... —Dinoguy1000 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The only article currently using this infobox in Category:Original English-language manga is Mazinger U.S.A. Version. —tan³ tx 05:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can install a check in the template to see which articles has the OEM parameter set. That will speed up locating them and switching them over to a comic infobox instead. --Farix (Talk) 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah, can't believe I didn't think of that! They should be sorted into Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters, right? (since I don't expect nearly enough articles will be picked up by this check to justify a separate maintenance category...) For that matter, there's no need to write a new check, since the template already checks in order to sort the article into Cat:Original English-language manga... just add the second category after the first (which I'll go ahead and do in a second). —Dinoguy1000 17:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that all of them have been converted, I've removed the OEL check from the manga infobox. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the documentation?

I've been thinking for awhile about splitting the documentation into individual pages for each component. They could then get transcluded onto each component's page, as well as onto the central documentation page so that it's all still in one place. Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea to me. --Eruhildo (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get started on the subpages then and see where I get. —Dinoguy1000 19:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done the documentation for the Header component, any thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, while everyone's here discussion the OVA/ONA split, does anyone have comments on this? I'd like *some* feedback before I go through doing this to the rest of the documentation. —Dinoguy1000 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it! There have been quite a few times where I needed to check something on a template and got annoyed having to click back to the central doc to see instead of being able to read the specific documentation on each template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the documentation for the Anime, Manga, and Movie components, but I'm running short of time, so I can't finish up right now. In addition, I'm not touching the OVA/Video/ONA components until the issue with them is resolved. —Dinoguy1000 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ONA box

User:Nohansen just moved the OVA box to Video, and instituted a new, ONA box, but I believe this should have been discussed first since I do not see the problem sticking with the previous orientation.--十八 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed at WT:ANIME#Angel of Darkness. Since ONA and OVA are different formats, it makes sense for them to have separate boxes. Also, since I added a live-action switch to Template:Infobox animanga/OVA (which was what was being discussed), it made sense to move it. Also, I changed all ONAs to use the ONA infobox, so there wouldn't be any problems. Furthermore, Template:Infobox animanga/OVA redirects to Template:Infobox animanga/Video, so no problems on that front either.--Nohansen (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, OVA and ONA are not different. Only the method of their release is different. And since the information in infobox for both is the same, there is no point in having separate infoboxes for each. --Farix (Talk) 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then we can merge Template:Infobox animanga/Anime and Template:Infobox animanga/Drama into a Template:Infobox animanga/TV box (the information for both is the same) with a switch for live_action. Don't you think?--Nohansen (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not "discussed". You merely suggested we do it this way, and then you did it, without giving anyone the chance to agree or disagree with you. Which is why I wanted to actually have a discussion on the matter before we go along and do it first, since it seems repetitive to have a whole new ONA box. And don't start splitting hairs. Do you know how many articles use the /Anime box template? All of the code would have to be changed to conform (or just leave them as is, which is sloppy, and means the template has to go through a redirect). I also see no reason for the OVA box to be moved to /Video if we don't choose to have a new ONA box.--十八 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. The move to "/Video" was because I meant to use the infobox for media released directly to video (OVA and V-Cinema). I did it because Dinoguy1000's way (link) didn't actually resolve the problem Nihonjoe pointed out in WT:ANIME#Angel of Darkness, which is Angel of Darkness is currently using an OVA infobox for a live-action direct-to-video film...

I thought having a default setting for "OVA", a switch for "ONA" and a switch for "live action" was too much, so I split the one that made the most sense.

On merging the two TV infoboxes into Template:Infobox animanga/TV: A bot could go through them. In fact, didn't we use to have a separate infobox for light novels until Farix merged them?--Nohansen (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did have a separate light novel box, and I was the one who had created it. Suffice it to say, I'm trying to prevent another thing like that from happening, having learned my lesson. IMO, a needless merge of anime/drama into /TV is just a waste of time when you consider someone has to then write a bot to go through the articles; if they're kept separate, then nothing happens. Same with the OVA/ONA thing. If the base box is kept the same, and additional switches are tacked on, that reduces the need for redundancy, especially if (as Farix pointed out) the infoboxes are extremely similar already. A direct-to-video film (live action or animated), is distributed the same as an OVA, and an ONA is basically the same thing, except for the mode of distribution. I'm not trying to create a double standard here, but I believe the creation of an ONA box and the possible merger of the anime/drama boxes into /TV should be kept separate since they mean different things for the project, especially when you consider the /Anime box is used in tons more articles than the 15 or so ONA articles.--十八 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So... What are we going to do about the live-action direct-to-video films? Because the current revision is categorizing live-action videos as OVAs.--Nohansen (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say create a switch on the /Movie box for such a circumstance. I believe there's already a switch for live-action films in that box.--十八 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be too much (one default setting and two switches)? That's the same situation I was trying to avoid when I separated the OVA and ONA infoboxes.--Nohansen (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you're so against having X amount of switches on a given infobox. It's better than creating new infoboxes which are nearly identical.--十八 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple things: first, I've re-fixed the categorization for live-action releases; and second, I don't see any problem with two switches, either, since I specifically wrote the live-action switch to be mutually exclusive to the ONA switch (if they're both set to "yes", only the ONA switch gets acted on, but this order can be changed if anyone really thinks it's necessary). Because of that, the new ONA component is IMO unnecessary, but it *could* be turned into a wrapper for the OVA component until this gets sorted out. And personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of the components merged together, but it would require a lot of careful thought before anything was done. —Dinoguy1000 18:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but I support having one box with switches over two separate boxes - it's much cleaner that way. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal link in footer?

I was thinking of adding a link to the Anime and Manga portal into {{Infobox animanga/Footer}}. At the moment, it simply closes the table, but there really is little justification in using it over standard wiki markup. I also hope that it will generate more traffic, and thus more editors, to the portal pages. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I would say make it optional for now. I'm just not certain that I want to see it in every infobox yet. The Japanese Wikipedia's animanga footer uses smaller text and links to the template. I think doing something similar with our footer and linking it to the animanga portal might look nice. --Eruhildo (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...not sure how I feel about that. If our portal was featured, maybe...but right now, I'm the main one even bothering to do anything with it, so its mostly quiet and primarily features randomly selected highlights of our featured and GA stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, and it may bring more interested people to assist with it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Any ideas for how it might look? If we put links back to the template in the footer, it would have to be something along the lines of "Documentation • Talk", due to the decentralized nature of the infobox. I have no opinion about a portal link at this time. Thoughts? (and yeah, I agree it's about time we did something with the footer) —Dinoguy1000 20:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the link with no styling other the bold and centered. Should it contain the pail blue of the field names, the darker blue of the section headings, or be left white? --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added the same background styling as the section headings before reading this (I've got to stop doing that =P ), but IMO it looks quite nice, like it's "capping off" the infobox, see for example A.D. Police. I also changed the table closing code (|}) to HTML (</table>), since mixing HTML and wikimarkup the way it was led to some weird extra space being inserted after the bottom cell. —Dinoguy1000 19:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Template components adding themselves into article-space categories

{{Infobox animanga/Anime}} and {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} are currently adding themselves to Category:Anime series and Category:Manga series, respectively. Isn't this incorrect behavior? —tan³ tx 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with the new documentation arrangement. But the new code should fix it now and only trigger if the template is in main space. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be my bad. I had to remove all the internal includeonly tags, and didn't stop to think about what it meant for categories. I'll be more careful when changing over the rest of the components (whenever I get around to it). —Dinoguy1000 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

broken

I think there's soemthing wrong with this template... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --Farix (Talk) 14:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IT was resolved at WT:ANIME 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

age rating

should we have one here? For anime that also have video game equivalents it could be useful, especially when the games would have radically different ratings. Video game one already has rating on it.じんない 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be here at all. The video game one seems very controversial from discussions there, and neither Films nor TV do such things as its overly American-centric and, from many discussions in those two projects about adding such things, are fairly arbitrary and trivial. It doesn't actually have any encyclopedic value. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The "American" aspect is a bogus argument since many other nations now have age rating systems, notably Japan which impacts this template no matter what country it's translated into (though it also has it for films as well I'll admit). As to its encyclopedic value, well that can be debatable as well.じんない 00:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If there is a Japanese rating, I've never seen it noted anywhere on any reliable source for any series I've worked on. And I've never seen sign of one in most of the countries where manga is most frequently sourced. It also, again, adds nothing to the articles, as is often agreed with other media articles. Its contextualess, arbitrary, and often incorrect. If it has any relevance, it might get a note in the reception section (I.E. if a reviewer questions the rating or voices support). That's about the only time I can see any value in mentioning that it was rating as being for X, but Y or reviewers agreed because Y. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know manga had ratings in Japan...Is it on the cover or something? What would it look like? I own a volume and it says nothing. Or is it a new thing? If it can't be found, then I'd say no. Video games are one thing--most countries have ratings now and the the infoboxes only use the rating for English-speaking countries and the country of origin. It's quite easy to find these ratings, anyway, because it requires a quick look at the publisher's website. Do you have an example of manga with a rating? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely against it. Following precedent from the Films and TV, agree with unencylopedic. Japan has no age rating system for manga. Never have. Parents there have the sense to check up on what their kids are reading. Doceirias (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eirin is a rating system for movies, which anime movies certainly fall under.じんない 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The only age ratings for anime and manga in Japan are "adult/porn" and everything else. Some films will occasionally mention extreme violence or "grotesque" content, but it's not all that common. Video games used to be the same way until the last 10 years or so (a little less than that, I think). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can point to a reliable source showing that there are age ratings for manga and/or anime, and what the ratings are, and how to find the ratings for a given series, oppose. I note that I've yet to see such a rating mentioned in a ja.wiki article about a series. (Target audience for a manga magazine, yes, but that's not the same thing.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, i am not talking here about manga - i am talking about films. Eirin itself should serve as a WP:V source that they rate films. However, I admit right now I don't have any way to find out easily what anime films are rated what.じんない 03:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably should have specified that in the first place. But the answer is exactly the same; the films project does not add the ratings, and there's no reason for us to do so with anime theatrical releases. Doceirias (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the need personally. If the rating is that important, it's easily mentionable in the article. Even then, I'd say the "need" or usefulness is generally minimal unless it may be the subject of some controversy (for example most of Manga Entertainment's 15 or 18 rated UK output up to the late 90's - lets be thankful they turned into a half decent company! before the turn of the millenium!) Dandy Sephy (talk)

Do novels have age rating on their back covers ?

We don't need age rating as there is no standardized convention and i also know manga which rating changed in the course of the volumes releases. Example : Dazzle (manga) from vol 1-4 rated +13 from 5-10 (still ongoing) rated +16 by Tokyopop.

Our job isn't to create a standard --KrebMarkt 08:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no need, either. As has been pointed out above, rating systems are too arbitrary, subjective, and nonstandardized (really, I guess those are just three sides to the same coin (figure that one out XD )) to warrent inclusion in the infobox, or any type of mention in articles, unless they've been noted by a reviewer, as AnmaFinotera stated. Manga isn't rated in Japan (except very broadly, per Nihonjoe), nor is anime, and I don't think film ratings are really that notable anyways. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about officially used ones for the Japanese films. For manga, yea, they would be completely arbitrary. Eirin has the ability to even deny release of films which says that it is not just some arbitrary rater.じんない 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ratings are arbitrary, even if the rater is not - there's plenty of examples of this amongst Tokyopop's manga releases. I never said that the rater (Eirin or anyone else) was arbitrary. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

For starters, it's just trivia and doesn't actually contribute to the article. I also hesitate to add too much more to the length of the infoboxes, which are already quite long for many series, unless it is to better organize the information already in the infoboxes. And also, the fact that {{Infobox Film}} doesn't have a ratings field should be a good indicator. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Automatically ongoing?

I'm not sure when this got added, but I just noticed that - with the novels infobox, at least - including a date for first (and none for last) results in a one volume non-series being automatically listed as ongoing. I suppose we can get it to stop by repeating the date under last, but it would probably be better if we just go back to manually adding ongoing in that field. Doceirias (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If its a one volume, I believe you're supposed to use published instead of the first/last fields? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That would also work, but is a bit confusing. At least, it clearly confused whoever made the infobox I saw. Doceirias (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This behavior is standard across all components which use the first and last parameters, and for the published types (manga and novels), published is the alternative when there is only one release. Unfortunately, this isn't documented clearly (if at all), so it's certainly not the fault of whoever made the infobox transclusion Doceirias is referring to. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Use sortkeys to sort cleanup from Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters?

Given the rather large number of conditions in which one of our articles may find itself here, would there be any objections to using sortkeys to sort the pages by condition? This would provide two benefits: first, it would give anyone working through the category (currently, that I am aware of, myself and TheFarix) an at-a-glance guide to what's causing the infobox to sort the article into the category; and second, it would allow someone to focus on one particular issue - for example, duplicated dates. I would in this case consider multiple issues (and therefore multiple sortkeys) on the same page to be a nonissue - anyone working through the articles should be checking them before saving to ensure that all problems have been resolved anyways. Thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It was suppose to be a temporary cat that turned into a permanent one, and it's misnamed for the job it's currently doing. But I've been contemplating about how to sort through the infobox errors, become it can sometimes be difficult to figure out why an infobox is throwing the article into the cat. I have thought about using multiple category for the various errors. --Farix (Talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had the same thought on the cat's name, any suggestions for a better one? Maybe something like Category:Anime and manga articles with infobox errors or Category:Anime and manga articles with malformed infoboxes... Hmm... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter seems a more appropriate name, since it can be argued if some of the checks are actually error. Then we can have subcats for specific checks. --Farix (Talk) 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So should we go ahead and switch over, or are we waiting for something? And which checks do you think should recieve their own subcategories (and what should those be named)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I guess we're waiting on this (probably should have mentioned it three days ago, but...). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 08:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Character designer segment

I propose adding an optional "character designer" segment within the anime infobox, as a character designer is one of the three most important figures involved in animation production and influences the entire series; its look, its outline and overall feel. It is as important or more so than an illustrator is to manga or light novels. It has also been a prominent segment of the Japanese Wikipedia's anime infobox. I think it's high time we incorporate it as well. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The character designer is one of the more important staff roles for any anime series, movie, or OVA. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify (since it's 2 in the morning here), you would like a character_designer parameter added to {{Infobox animanga/Anime}} (and probably {{Infobox animanga/OVA}}), right? I would support that. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and of course it would be an optional segment. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not saying mentioning the character designer isn't important in the article, putting it in the infobox I think is a bit too much info for a passerby to really get anything out of it, especially since I doubt we have a lot of articles on most of the character designers out there, and besides most of them aren't notable enough to get their own articles. And on top of that, wouldn't the person who composed the soundtrack also be equally important? Some of the time, the music of a series gets a lot of attention because of the composer. My point is that we shouldn't clutter the infobox unless absolutely necessary, like if we added a field for character designer or music director, they must at least be notable enough to already have their own article.--十八 08:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm on the fence about this one. Looking at the TV and Film infoboxes, I can see it both ways that it could be valid, but at the same time as Juhachi noted, few character designers are notable enough for their own articles, unlike directors and producers, and for many more minor series, finding out who that is is rather difficult as it is not always listed anywhere. I also would be concerned about the infoboxes getting larger, because unlike TV/Film, ours are often stacked with multiple media. I think, for now, I'm hedging on the side of, if they are notable enough for a prose mention, they will be in the prose as sourced production information and leave it at that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with this; the writer and director are a clear step above the other staff, importance wise. Let the rest of the staff be covered in the production section. Doceirias (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Character designers are indeed extremely notable and several third-party, published and notable Japanese publications (including Animage, Newtype and several several others) regularly produce segments detailing them, their involvement, and interviews with them. Anime TV channels in Japan such as Animax also regularly cover them and have special programs and interviews regarding their involvement, as well as 30-minute previews that air on channels such as MBS before or between the show's airings. They are often the chief animation director and thus the primary animators involved in the animation production, and are thus directly involved in the creation of all forms of animation media - this makes them very notable. Several character designers, such as Yoshikazu Yasuhiko, Norio Shioyama, Katsuya Kondō, Yoshifumi Kondō, Yoshitaka Amano and Nobuteru Yūki have shaped the entire structure of shows and entire studios by themselves and as I have stated above, their influence has been detailed in innumerous third-party publications and many among them have published artbooks that make them notable as illustrators or photographers themselves (in retrospect, for an exhaustive list of notable Japanese photographers, please see Hoary's contributions to WP:JAPAN). A recent example, Code Geass, has the character designers, Clamp being involved directly in how the series was to shape itself and indeed several third-party publications dedicated entire segments about their involvement and the character designing stages, and certainly theirs is just one of the innumerous examples. In short, if notability is an issue, they are certainly more than capable of meeting each and every notability criteria. Certainly, they deserve more than a passing mention in the prose and more than comfortably merit a place in the anime infobox. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 05:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But again, the examples you cite are all rather well-known and already have their own articles, so of course they're notable. I don't think anyone's discounting the notability of the character designers, but except for the few that are notable enough to already have their own article, I don't think we should add all character designers to the infobox (especially if they are not the chief animation director as well). As AnmaFinotera said, we should really be more concerned than we are about the length of our boxes since we compound them instead of all other projects which use a single infobox with many more fields.--十八 06:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Character designers would definitely be considered on the same level of notability as directors or screenwriters as they are directly involved in the creation of the media, much more so than other individuals that are involved in the industry. And I actually forgot to include Hayao Miyazaki into that list, my bad. If we were to go by case-by-case notability, then I would definitely say they meet those requirements comprehensively, and as I noted above, several of the Japanese anime magazines and periodicals have segments wholly dedicated to them, while many of them also publish artbooks that are notable in themselves indeed. Since it is one of the the most important figures involved in animation, space shouldn't even be a factor. Why should relevance and important factors like it be sacrificed by space? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 12:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Width?

Can anyone here tell me why our infobox is 22em wide when WP:IBX recommends 25em/300px? Would there be any objections to upping the width? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1) 22em is standard for most infoboxes, including the meta-template {{infobox}}. 2) WP:IBX is outdated and needs to put updated to reflect current practices. --Farix (Talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, both of those are pretty good reasons. Thanks for the answer. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Template consolidation

A couple of months ago, Dinoguy1000 pitched an idea of consolidating several of our templates since many of them have the same fields. I did some prototyping in one of my sandboxes were I combined {{Infobox animanga/Anime}}, {{Infobox animanga/OVA}}, {{Infobox animanga/Film}}, and {{Infobox animanga/Drama}} into one infobox and {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} and {{Infobox animanga/Novel}} into another. At the same time, I've dealt with a formatting issue regarding titles and also separated the episode list at the same time. While it does make the infobox longer, I believe the infobox benefits more and the parameters are already in the box. --Farix (Talk) 13:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I was working on a discussion draft on my talk page, which I'll now copy over (in a collapsed table, 'cause it's pretty lengthy) for your reading edification. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've tweaked/expanded the draft below, you may want to reread it or just see the changes. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to highlight a serialization issue that is tangentially touched upon below: I know of one notable series that was initially serialized as a self-published doujinshi, and another that was initially serialized (after the first couple chapters) on cell phones before being collected in tankobon. The current template does not handle these cases very well. I have no good solution for this, but handling them should be part of the requirements. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to add this information to the draft below. =) When I was writing/expanding the draft, I was working off of the top of my head, and dojinshi never even crossed my mind. Since you mentioned it, though, I can almost immediately point to another, absolutely massive franchise that started out as a dojin soft game and dojinshi manga. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that I've thought on it more, there's one other manga release format I didn't consider - yonkoma. Any others anyone else can think of? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yonkoma could be added as a new type. But which fields does it need and what should the box be labeled? Do we really want to include a dōjinshi type, and why doesn't the manga box do the job, with the lead making the clarification/clarification. The same goes for dojin soft games. Walkin' Butterfly and Hetalia Axis Powers poses the most interesting problems though. --Farix (Talk) 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, at the moment it's not so much a matter of "here's this media type, the infobox should support it" so much as "this is a media type that's not explicitly supported, for further consideration". I actually always intended the discussion to result in a comprehensive list of media types and formats that could then be reviewed for suitability for inclusion in the infobox. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with many of the points which have been made above and the proposed format. Also, I think a character designer field would be of great importance as they are increasingly being inherently influential to the entire show, structure and nature of anime, and I'm sure many who have studied the anime industry and its history through the ages would agree with me. This would be a very good step forward. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We aren't to the point yet of vetting individual fields for inclusion, but I'd like to point out that you previously proposed adding a field for the character designer, and that proposal was rejected. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly was it rejected when only a couple or so people happened to disagree with the proposal? Others agreed with it as well. I don't think it's been discussed at any feasible range as of yet. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 12:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To open another discussion, Dinoguy asked for a list of "the audio media formats one might encounter in an animanga franchise." Off the top of my head, there's soundtracks, character song/albums, image song/albums, and various forms of audio dramas, including drama CDs, radio dramas, and radio shows done in character, all three of which can (confusingly) released as CDs. Aside from radio dramas and possibly drama CDs, both of which are adaptations of the story as opposed to ancillary merchandizing, I don't think most of these belong in the infobox. If we include drama CDs, it should probably include a number parameter to collect all of them into a series. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalled?

This discussion was recently brought up as being stalled. Not sure why as it seemed resolved. What needs to be done? Do we just need to start going down the list with compiling different media types and formats?じんない 07:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is stalled, and is far from resolved. Compiling the list of media types is only the first step; from there, we have to decide which types we want the infobox to cover and what information we want to provide for each (and how/in what order that information should be presented). After that, most of the rest of the discussion and work will be between the template editors, deciding the best way to update the infobox and resolving issues as they arise. Once all that is done, I do have some other things to be discussed, but that's neither here nor there. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright...in an effort to start this process moving again, I'll start with a prelim list for #1. Probably I'm missing a few, but we won't get anywhere if we just wait for someone else to come along. For media types I'd have to say there are the following:

1. Print:
   1. Novels
      1. Light
      2. Serialized
      3. Online
      4. Released in volumes
   2. Manga
      1. One-shots
         1. Chapter
         2. Volume
      2. Serialized
         1. Chapter format
         2. Yonkoma (4-panel) format
         3. Cell phones
         4. Web comics
      3. Dōjinshi
      4. Tankōbon and related formats (kanzenban, wideban, etc.)
      5. Guidebooks/Databooks and similar books
2. Video:
   1. Series
      1. Animated
         1. Television (anime)
         2. Original video animation (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, etc.)
         3. Original net animation
         4. Cell phones
      2. Live-action
         1. Television (TV dramas)
         2. Direct-to-video/V-Cinema
   2. Films
      1. Animated
         1. Theatrical
         2. Theatrical Shorts
         3. Television
         4. Direct-to-video
         5. Convention screens?
      2. Live-action
         1. Theatrical
         2. Television
         3. Direct-to-video
   3. Specials
      1. Television
      2. Shorts
      3. Original video animation/Direct-to-video
      4. Released with games
      5. Convention screens
   4. Shorts
      1. Television
      2. Original video animation/Direct-to-video
      3. Released with games
      4. Convention screens
   5. Music videos
3. Audio:
   1. Dramas
      1. Radio dramas
      2. CD/cassette(?)
   2. Music
      1. Single release songs
      2. albums
         1. Soundtracks
         2. Original scores
         3. Remixes
         4. Compilations (possibility with other unrelated music)
4. Game:
   1. Video games
   2. Board games
   3. Tabletop RPGs
   4. Card games
      1. Trading/collectible card games
      2. non-T/CCGs

じんない 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we want to include music related items as infobox components? Most infoboxes are long enough just covering the manga and anime adaptations. I also don't think we should including board and trading card games for the same reasons, and think we should tighten up our useage of the game template to franchizes that started off as a game first. (ie. Tears to Tiara) --Farix (Talk) 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is step 1, collecting every possible relevant element of a fictional work that might be used in multiple titles. It's easier in this step to have more stuff than we intend to keep and ween things down then start by having to few and adding things ad-hoc later.じんない 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. This way, we can be relatively sure we don't end up with coverage gaps like we currently have. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a bunch of stuff and reformatted the list some, and removed the notes. Generally, the infoboxes aren't going to worry about how any given media was released in a licensed environment' that's what prose is for (the same reasoning lies behind why the infoboxes don't note when a manga/anime series was released in English); and music videos refer specifically to a song with a video, so there's no confusion as to whether it's audio or video. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Readded shorts as they are also a legitimate type of animation - usually 5-10, though sometimes 15 minutes including credits. There are theatrical shorts which are shown before the main movie presentation and shorts shown during television. The difference between a short and an episode is mostly length - an episode can clearly fill a time slot, a short cannot on its own. Also they are self-contained so stringing two together won't make a coherent narrative. Whether in the end we keep them or not, they should be in a prelim list.じんない 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

After editing School Rumble I releazed we were missing guidebooks or other similar content from this prelim list.じんない 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, not surprised I forgot those. Can anyone else think of any additional items? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Added tabletop RPGs (i know a number of series have had RPG rules systems spawned based off them...I even own one. I also divided audio section more actuality as it seemed somewhat more lumped together than video portion. I think that mostly covers it. I asked in the project talk page and no one has responded. I think unless we added animation from video-game content (which some of them are getting long enough to be considered feature length movies) or promotional video (like trailers) or promotional songs (like demos) then that's it. Everything we have can probably be classified under those terms.じんない 03:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, that sounds pretty good. I think we've waited long enough for others to chime in and add items; more can be added later if necessary. In the meantime, it's time to start whittling this down some, and providing examples of stuff also wouldn't hurt. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 03:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion

I divided the discussion into the 4 basic categories. Each section should discss what info from the afore mentioned list really needs to be addressed. In addition, if the list misses any info that might need to be addressed.

Remember the basic goal of this is to try and consolidate the number of infoboxes, not infinitely expand them. However, if we are missing a relevant infobox and it can't be combined with another, then it probably should be added.じんない 04:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We may want to add a collapsed field to every one as well which would be able to collapse the individual section.じんない 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Print Media Discussion

I'm thinking more along the lines of dropping light novel and replace it with serial novel (could be named "serialized novel"). Serial novels require the print infobox component to behave differently from that of a normal novel do to the serialization. The thing about light novels is that they are defined based on their writing style and target audience instead of how they are released. A light novel could either be released in regular book form or serialized in a magazine.

Can anyone identify a novel that has only been released online? What additions to the print infobox component is needed to handle these?

Other than Hetalia: Axis Powers, are there any other manga series that started off as a webcomic? I'm content with leaving webcomics to {{Infobox comic strip}} unless there are other aspects that are within our scope (i.e. printed manga, anime adaptation, and etc.). But what modifications should be made to the infobox?

Since most dōjinshi is non-notable anyways, I don't see a need. And the few that do pass WP:N can already be covered by the current manga component. There is no need for additional fields.

Everything else under manga is already covered by the existing infobox. --Farix (Talk) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As for naming one, I can't offhand, other than perhaps some dōjinshi. However, I think its a good idea for future intergration as I really only see 1 additional field nessasary an online = yes/no or electronic = yes/no where the original release was online. This would also cover the likes of cell phones and what is more likely in the future, ereader releases.

As for guidebooks/databook, I'm unsure about. They are pervasive and their are several which also contain original stories. They might be able to be folded into a novel infobox if it was renamed as all but the type of book it is could use those exact fields.

Currently manga doesn't cover chapters, except through chapter_list, which requires a link. A series that meets WP:N or a spinoff series that only needs to meet WP:V on the parent article, could have no place to list chapters as it would be inappropriate to split off the list if its too short.じんない 16:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with novels to really be able to comment here; I'll have to trust your judgement, Farix. ;)

I would oppose including guide/data/fanbooks in the infobox; these are almost never significant aspects of a series (I don't think I've ever seen one that could be considered significant, although I think Death Note: How To Read 13 comes close).

I asked a long time ago about including a field for the number of chapters in the infobox, and was basically told "no, beware the infobox bloat!". However, I think it could actually be very succinctly presented in the volumes field, e.g. "Volumes: 6 (40 chapters)" (the coding (greatly simplified!) would be along the lines of <th>Volumes</th><td>{{{volumes|}}} {{#if:{{{chapters|}}}|({{{chapters}}} chapters)}}</td>) - exactly how that would behave when chapter_list is given something, though, would have to be worked out (there's two main possibilities, though). I'd also still like to see some parameters specifically for serialization v. volume publication dates, and I can whip up a pretty detailed proposal for that, but I think it's best left for a later discussion. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 06:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I wouldn't push for databook/guidebooks as they are generally not signifigant. There are exceptions, but I'd say far fewer than TCGs. I just brought it up to see where everyone else stands.じんない 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Animation/Live Action Discussion

Farix has already commented on not needing to list information regarding music videos.じんない 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of what is here is already covered by the proposed video infobox component. But I don't think it is appropriate to list music videos in an infobox, nor are music videos within the projects scope. No need to separate short films from feature-length films and I don't even think that {{Infobox Film}} makes such a distinctions.

Specials are almost always in reference to television. And the infobox already handles those cases quite well. I also don't see a need to distention shorts from everything else

The only convention screeners of note are the two from DAICON III and IV. It is already using {{Infobox Film}}, but our film component should adequately handle similar situations. In general, films should use {{Infobox Film}} unless the article covers more then just the film. --Farix (Talk) 13:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have 2 concerns. The first is with titles like Green Legend Ran which was originally 4 OVAs in Japan compiled and released as a movie in English. Currently it uses the OVA template.

The second is with shorts. Currently we use OVA template which list them as "Episodes" which is inapporpriate (see Azumanga Daioh's Azumanga Web Daioh. It doesn't properlly handle such situations where it isn't meant to be an "episode" currently as it reqiores that it be part of a sequential work (even if like Galaxy Angel the sequential nature comes from its weekly release. A one-off release of something outside the linearity isn't an episode.じんない 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not worried about what format they were released under when they were licensed (Manga Entertainment seems to have a habit of licensing short OVA series and editing them into single films); the prose can deal with that.

I think "Episodes" is probably the best possible terminology. What would you suggest for an alternate term, and how would you propose the template triggers its use? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 06:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Episode" is not the word as it comes from base "episodic". Both have the idea in part (more strongly with the former, that it requires a series. A single show without another to precede or follow it is not an episode. In such a case I'd say if the number is 1, then you simply don't list it (and the template should ignore anything where episode=1.じんない 22:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio Discussion

Farix has already commented on not needing to list information regarding music videos.じんない 01:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the audio infobox adequately handles our needs. Information about soundtracks and other music related information should be covered by the article, and not the infobox. In most cases, the audio infobox should mainly be used if the audio drama is a significant component of the media franchise or had an anime or manga based off of it. If it is among the last components of an article infobox, then it should probably be removed. --Farix (Talk) 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

About the only thing I can think of is that its missing a licenser/distributor if it was never aired and its not the same as the main company.じんない 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Games Discussion

I think given the number of anime/manga spawning their own popular trading card games, noting those should be done. This can be done with the addition of 2-4 fields, some of which can be double used for board games others like RPG systems.

• type field - video game, board game, collectable card game (trading card game), etc. This could be used by all of them and if possible it would be better if it listed as part of the title like "Video Game: Naruto". Lack of the filling in the field would leave it with "Game: Naruto"
• last released and last released other - This could be used for remakes, but my primary intention was for TCGs/CCGs which release "sets" and thus without having to list every single set, we can conolidate it to first and last release date.
• set numbers - similar function as volume or episode numbers. We list the number of sets out. This would almost be exclusive to TCGs/CCGs. However, at the same time field like platform would be exclusive to video games.

We could also possibly change released and released other to allow for first and last dates. This would further consolidate things and leave the number of new fields to 2. じんない 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the game infobox component as a whole. Any information relating to merchandising of the anime/manga series should be covered in the appropriate section of the article. The only reason we need a game infobox component is when an anime series is based on a game. In pretty much every case, this will be a video or computer game. (I know that sounds odd coming from the person who created the component.) So I don't see a need to include board games or TCGs until they start spinning off anime and manga series on a regular bases. And in most cases, we actually like to keep those articles separate from each other for organizational purposes and maintain a clear focus. --Farix (Talk) 13:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yugioh (anime, not the manga) and Duel Masters I can think of offhand were based off the cardgame. I believe there are more, but I haveto go now.じんない 16:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more: Monster Collection - started a anime and Cardcaptors TCG - came out at the same time as the movie by the same name. Note that it is Cardcaptors TCG, not Cardcaptor Sskaura TCG

There is also Duel Masters listed above which debuted on the initial release of the series and directly tied to it. Yugioh manga wasn't so much tied to the card games, but the anime was much more heavily tied and indeed spawned 2 series of its own based upon it.

That's at least 4 distinct (possibly 6 if you count spinoffs) t/cgs that can be found to have been the basis for anime. I admit Cardcaptors is the weakest. In addition, like many other anime/manga though, multiple series have gotten their own TCG/CCG as a way of promotion or revival (FE: Sailor Moon Collectible Card Game came out several years after both the anime and manga ended, but prior to the live action.じんない 08:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Yu-Gi-Oh! anime (both original series) was based off of the manga mainly, being influenced by and in turn influencing the TCG as well. However, there's about four different YGH T/CCGs, and I've never really looked at just how the earlier ones might have interplayed with the manga or anime.

I've never paid any attention to Duel Masters or Monster Collection, so I can't speak for them... but the Cardcaptors CCG and film you're talking about are in the Cardcaptor Sakura franchise, right? If they are, keep in mind that the Cardcaptors film is merely the licensed version of the original Japanese Cardcaptor Sakura film, which would have been based mainly on the manga and anime series.

As to the earlier point about when to use the game component, I have to agree with Farix - it should generally be avoided unless the game was adapted into one or more manga/anime series. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 06:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ToS of Yugioh was about 50% based off of it. However, the TCG aspect heavily influenced it, there are several filler seasons that revolve around the mechanics of the card games. The GX and 5Ds series were based around the card games centrally as while ToS ignored the rules at times, the later anime series purposefully follow the rules of the card game.

Duel Masters was a concurrent release. The anime and card game (i think there was a manga) were released at the same time to help self promote each, mostly the card game as the anime, like the later spinoff Yugioh series, very much follows the game mechanics of the card game.

Monster Collection I know little of except I believe it was the first anime-based TCG/CCG and it started based on the card game that was later adapated to the anime. The part about being the first I'm not sure on though.

As for Cardcaptors, I did say it was pretty weak. I'd have to find more info if its concurrent release was coincidence, was based on the movie and/or intended to help hype the movie. I don't have enough info at this time to make a clear statement.

As for its use...that practice seems to be ignored a lot with video games, even when it's clear the game did not come first and did not spawn any anime/manga off of it.じんない 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The practice has been ignored because there has been no action to enforce it (or discussion to see if the project agrees with it (they may not, but I think a lot of senior members would appreciate any new practices that cut the length of the average infobox =) )). In any case, it would have to be noted pretty obviously in the template documentation as well. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Original discussion draft

Template:Infobox animanga overhaul

• {{Infobox animanga}} has been updated somewhat haphazardly over time, and as a result, there are many inconsistencies, redundancies, and gaps between components.
  • A lot of work has gone into eliminating inconsistencies, especially during the June 2008 update (See Template talk:Infobox animanga/Archive 3#Parameter names and Template talk:Infobox animanga/Archive 3#Parameter update for relevant discussions). However, a comprehensive look at the template and what it should cover, and a concentrated effort to eliminate as many inconsistencies, redundancies, and gaps as possible has never been attempted.
• Currently, {{Infobox animanga}} covers several media types and release formats. However, the exact format is becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly in relation to the release format, in terms of both the initial Japanese release and of release abroad. Therefore, the infobox needs to be rethought from the ground up to allow more robust handling of release details.
  • Examples:
    • Hetalia Axis Powers started out as a webcomic which is now being collected into tankōbon volumes, and the series has been adapted into an anime series to be released more-or-less simultaneously on television (until the TV broadcast was canceled), the internet, and to cell phones - thankfully, the series hasn't been licensed yet.
    • FLCL, which was initially released as an OVA in Japan, has been repeatedly aired on television (specifically on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim programming block) in the United States. However, because the OVA component does not have any network parameters, this cannot currently be covered in the infobox.
  • Media covered by WikiProject Anime and manga can be split into three main categories, each of which can be further split (these further divisions may overlap between the main three categories).
    • The first category covers the type of the media - whether it's video, book/printed, audio, or video game. There is occasionally some overlap here, almost always of video games having anime clips, but this is inconsequential and can be ignored. Merchandise could also be considered here, but most merchandise doesn't even warrant mention in the article prose, much less its own infobox component.
    • The second category covers the means of production, and largely relates to television/film, distinguishing mainly between live-action and animated works. Amongst printed works, manga, novels and light novels, and films comics are distinguished from each other. Audio works are mainly distinguished between one-time dramas, regular programs, and voice comics.
    • The third category covers the initial method of distribution, and depending on the type of the media (the first category), different methods could be extremely trivial (manga being serialized versus published in tankōbon format) or very important (anime OVAs typically have much better production values than televised anime series). The "initial" is to be stressed here, since the same series may end up being distributed in multiple ways - for instance, an anime series may initially be televised, and later released to VHS, DVD, or some other format; when it gets licensed for translation and distribution in another country, it may instead be released directly to VHS or DVD, or it may be streamed online free or for a cost, or via other means (for instance, over Xbox Live). See the above examples.
      • In television/film, the main divisions here are between televised productions, direct-to-video productions (OVAs and original DVD animations), productions distributed via the internet (ONAs), productions released to theaters (almost always films), productions released with video game discs as specials, and productions shown during conventions or announcements as specials.
      • In printed media, the main distinction is between those productions that get serialized in a magazine (typically weekly, but several are monthly, seasonal, or follow other schedules) and those that get directly published in tankōbon format, though it's important to remember that almost without exception, those series which are originally serialized get published in tankōbon volumes eventually. No distinction is made between manga and [light] novels, since they can both be serialized chapter-by-chapter. One-shots can also be distinguished here, but these typically don't have independent notability, and there are few instances where they even get mentioned in articles beyond the author's.
      • In audio media, the distinction is between radio programs and programs released directly to CD, though there may be other release formats.
  • Currently, {{Infobox animanga}} covers several of these, but not all, and some of them are duplicated between components:
    • {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} covers manga series, whether they're serialized or published in tankōbon format; it also covers one-shots, but there is no specialized parameter for distinguishing these.
    • {{Infobox animanga/Anime}} covers television anime series and TV films, although the distinction between TV films and the films covered by the film component which requires them to be supported by the anime component is not clear. In addition, there is no specialized way of handling televised anime specials such as Saint Elmo - Hikari no Raihousha, or specials distributed with video games or shown at conventions or announcements, other than treating them as either one-episode TV anime series, TV films, or OVAs, none of which is completely accurate.
    • {{Infobox animanga/Film}} covers animated and live-action theatrical films; as noted above, there is no clear reason why it cannot also cover television films. This is the Infobox animanga-compatible version of {{Infobox Film}}, with many of the parameters stripped out; it may benefit from having most or all of these restored; particularly when merging articles on nonnotable films to the parent franchise's article.
    • {{Infobox animanga/OVA}} covers original video animations, original net animations, and direct-to-video films; it could easily be merged into the anime and film components, which would reduce redundancy between components and resolve several other issues.
    • {{Infobox animanga/Drama}} covers television drama series and one-time TV drama specials or films. Other than that, it's largely identical to the anime component and could easily be merged there.
    • {{Infobox animanga/Audio}} covers audio dramas, both those broadcast over the radio and released directly to CD.
    • {{Infobox animanga/Game}} covers all video games. Like the film component, this is a greatly stripped-down and Infobox animanga-compatible version of {{Infobox VG}}, and may benefit from having many of these removed parameters restored, particularly when merging in articles on nonnotable video games.
    • {{Infobox animanga/Novel}} covers novels and light novels, and is the Infobox animanga-compatible version of {{Infobox Book}}. Like the film and video game components, this one may benefit from reviewing the main infobox template for additional parameters.
  • There are several other issues which need to be discussed at this time. Three issues immediately present themselves:
    • Handling of the title parameters - currently, title is omitted from any component where it would duplicate the article's name or the name parameter of {{Infobox animanga/Header}}. However, this leads to confusion amongst newer editors and has also resulted in strife between editors and, in at least one case, an edit war that resulted in the article being temporarily protected. Two possible solutions present themselves: first, if no title parameter is given, default to displaying {{PAGENAME}}, or second, always require title to be defined.
    • Handling of the x_en parameters - these were implemented following two discussions where it was pointed out that English-language licensors and distributors were not being handled with any degree of consistency in the infobox components. Since then, several editors have disagreed with their use, typically citing a real or perceived bias towards English information. Personally, I feel that the parameters themselves are necessary to ensure consistent formatting, but their presentation could be adjusted. Three possible solutions exist for this problem, then: first, continue outputting the parameters in a separate row between the Japanese information and the other language information, as has been done since the parameters' implementation; second, insert the contents of the parameters in the same field as the Japanese parameters, immediately below the Japanese information; or third, insert the contents of the parameters at the top of the other languages parameter fields.
    • Display of the chapter_list and episode_list parameters - currently, when provided, these automatically link the contents of the chapters or episodes parameters; however, there seems to be at least some support for displaying these separately below the chapter/episode counts. If the current display method is kept, the practice of also linking the words "Episodes" and "Volumes" should also be reviewed, especially concerning whether the "Volumes" header in {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} should continue linking to Tankōbon, or if it should instead be made to link to the provided chapter list, and not link to anything if no chapter list is provided.
      • A similar issue is whether simplified linking, as was originally proposed, should be enabled.
• Based on the above text, I'd recommend the following course of action, accompanied by appropriate discussion, of course (and because I'm working from my above draft, the following proposal probably won't match up with TheFarix's proposed revision):
  1. Compile a list of all different media types and formats that could conceivably fall within WP:ANIME's scope, and identify which ones are desirable for inclusion in the infobox - particularly in relation to audio formats, since the audio component is a recent addition and audio formats in general are still poorly represented in the infobox.
  2. Review the information currently covered by each infobox component, comparing it with the information allowed by the standalone infoboxes, and identify any information considered unnecessary - or additional information desired for inclusion.
  3. Merge {{Infobox animanga/Anime}}, {{Infobox animanga/OVA}}, and {{Infobox animanga/Drama}} into a single component named {{Infobox animanga/Video}} or similar, while splitting and merging when appropriate to {{Infobox animanga/Film}} - merged components should be retained as wrappers allowing for shorthand usage.

Consolidated

There's been enough discussion and consensus supports consolidation. So I've consolidated the above templates into {{Infobox animanga/Print}} and {{Infobox animanga/Video}}. The latter probably isn't the best name, but I couldn't come up with anything better. I did have a minor issue with the former {{Infobox animanga/Anime}} and {{Infobox animanga/OVA}} using the {{{licensor}}}. One defined it as the English licensor and the other defined it as the Japanese "licensor." The problem is that there generally isn't a Japanese licensor. Frankly, I think someone got confused and thought that because there were three different forms |network=, |publisher=, and |magazine=, there should be three different forms for |licensor=. --Farix (Talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some errors. publisher_en is being combine with publishers_other. See Tokyo Mew Mew for an example. Ditto with network_en and network_other. These are each supposed to be separate fields and I see nothing in the discussion above about removing this beyond one the one note in the original discussion that a few editors (wrongly) claimed it was systematic bias. As that claim is incorrect and such a major change was never discussed, this needs to be corrected very quickly please. Also, until there is consensus for the change in the title fields, can this be fixed to use the previous method.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of treading the English language information separately in the infobox from other international versions. I do think it is a form bias that we should avoid. There is enough problems with systemic bias related to the reception sections of most articles, so we shouldn't be compounding the problem. --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be bias if it were American release or UK release. This is still the English wikipedia, and all other major media infoboxes notes original country release and English release only. Other languages aren't even included in infoboxes unless its a major deal. I see no reason we should be immune or difference. English readers are primarily going to be interested in original and English first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we lose focus and get embroiled in debate here, this is about the consolidation of the templates. The handling of English language information is a sufficiently hot-button issue that it should be discussed separately from everything else, and preferably after the initial update has settled and been appropriately tweaked. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I *really* don't like the idea of using a single type parameter to control what the component is for, especially with values like serial novel or live video. I'd much rather have a set of specifically-named switches for this, allowing users to do something like "{{Infobox animanga/Video|film=yes|live=yes|...}}" for a live-action film. Yes, this would mean more code for us, but I think it would be easier for the end users (including myself); it's much easier to remember about 3 parameters and be able to mix-and-match on the fly than to have to remember between a half-dozen values that are much more prone/sensitive to mistakes. I'll try to play around with this some when I have more time. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 08:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I very much dislike using multiple switches when they don't add really add any value to the template. It simply makes things more complex then they need to be and actually makes the template more confusing. What happens if someone sets conflicting switches, such as |film=, |ova=, and/or |tv=? In this scenario, it is much easier to have one field. The only real issue is documenting the arguments that |type= will except. Besides, most editors simply copy the code from the template's documentation page, so errors shouldn't be a big problem. One thing that could be done to help reduce this is to display an error message and place the article into a maintenance category. --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dinoguy1000. It also reduces the amount of clutter. What is the difference coding-wide from a serial-novel and a manga? One has type=manga and one has type=serial...yea. Just excess documentation and the more information you put up, the more likely there is for someone to get confused. I still say we should have one for anime shorts. Those are not OVAs anymore than a TV series is.陣内_Jinnai 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, multiple switches would simplify coding (even with the possibility of the production of more code). Compare {{#switch|{{lc:{{{type}}}}}|type x = ...|type x + y = ...|type x + z = ...}} (in which "type x" is the common denominator, and we're catching all uses of it) and {{#if:{{{type x|}}}|...}}. As I said above, I will do some work on sandboxes so you can see exactly what I'm talking about and how the code will differ. I'd also use your own argument against you in regards to setting conflicting switches: a maintenance category would work perfectly well, and the addition of a displayed error would clue the user in that something's wrong, or we could just decide (yes, it would be pretty much completely arbitrary) that certain switches always override certain other switches. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I must say shorts should be separated. This is a legitimately recognized classification, just as TV episodes and films. We don't have to seperate theatrical shorts from TV shorts (which do exist BTW), but they aren't OVAs because they weren't released initially to video, nor are the films and nor are the tv episodes (with a very limited exceptions).陣内_Jinnai 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm on print, I wonder if there could be a way to make it display on initial date. Popotan manga had both volumes of its short-run manga released the same date and it doesn't look very good on the box to have Original run August 23, 2005 - August 23, 2005 because that's just not how it should look when there's one date...there is no "through".陣内_Jinnai 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there serialization dates that you can use? Otherwise, using |released= works together with |volumes=. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dinoguy1000 - no I don't believe it was ever seralized. At least I can't find anything.陣内_Jinnai 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't serialized, what's with Magazine Z in its component? (and it seems that the volumes *were* released on two different dates, judging by your edit...) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

True, it was. I had a facepalm moment when I realized who the parent company of Magazine Z was...However, that doesn't change the problem with the template. If a series of books is released on the same day, the template can't handle that at present. IMO it would be best if we could in such a circumstance have the template use last date in a similar manner first date is used if nothing is added. Currently if you don't have a last date, it lists it as ongoing. I think if we could have it put the last date only it just list 1 date period automatically. The document could be updated to reflect that.陣内_Jinnai 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I pointed out above, the template can handle such cases: |released=Release Date |volumes=# 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another error. Its showing {{{title}}} on some infoboxes. See Blood: The Last Vampire. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look, but couldn't spot the problem. Since the title has been split out into its own row, I still feel that it should now default to {{PAGENAME}}. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On BTLV's boxes the anime film and live action film boxes are showing "{{{title}}}" where there is no title specified. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer: I couldn't spot the problem in the template's source; I saw the fields incorrectly showing on TLV. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a pass through error on {{Infobox animanga/Film}}. It's been fixed now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 June 2009